tv [untitled] May 20, 2013 11:00am-11:31am PDT
>> it's assorted type of things. >> so it's not related to the fourth unit. >> no. >> on that second case so order of abatement has been placed on both properties? >> yes. i believe all - and. >> time has passed and now - >> yes. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry, i may have misunderstood your answer there was an order of abatement. >> right base he's not appealing the orders of abatement he's way beyond the costs the days for
that. >> i wanted to mayor, i understood that. >> the appellant could ream early presentation. >> yes, thank you how much time do i have. >> i don't know what you're normal practice is he's going to speak to both appeals he gets fourteen minutes? >> do you want to speak to both appeals? >> i - again, it's up to you guys kind of in a consolidated appeal. >> i think our staff - >> on the complaint tracking number that's associated with u
the fees on when the gentleman filed that permit we didn't schedule that so that one doesn't have an order. the problem is that the filing of that building permit was aborted so we have an open case. we set aside the statement of costs and the order of abatement is not being appealed here its the assessment of costs so it's a different kind of appeal >> thank you. i hear two different messages from the board is one the unit is illegal and not illegal
>> the owner has attempted to correct - he says he never aborted a permit that was issued it was only that he required to fix. and yet in emphasis file i don't see in his file he adopted aborted - . the board of representatives discussed i really think it was a global representation of everything. the record states after refusing documents chief approved the removal of the application
request and it was approved. i believe we have a moondz the owner did want to fix the violations and was attempting to comply with all the violations. so what we would like to have confirmation from this panel that that i dlangsz pretty well by the board be reversed. i'm happy to answer questions otherwise i've made my
door i bought the building 37 years ago. i want to save the church. which i distributed to you now is pictures i've taken of the other side of the wall. the wall that they say had an opening, in fact, it may have had a case opening but it was never used and we know that because if we look at the bottom first look at the stairs that group to the toilet room of all things but the city is saying oh, no, because the stairs go up here and off to the right i'll bet you that they were connected at one time and that's what we're going to decide.
but they don't talk about the pipe the pipe water supply pipe goes 35 from the churches kitchen to a toilet and a sink. and one of the documents that you have in your pact is a writing from the current reverend of the church and i've been through 3 reverend's of the church and they said we've had no contact with anybody or anything that's been in the units that's alleged to be next door but it's three or four feet higher than than the commercial feet. plus looking at those pictures we see way back to the 19
hundreds this was a toilet room. you can see a little handrail that the church made a modest room here. and that's the total the whole time for the commercial space and now their suggesting and whatever their unwillingness to give this is this as a stand alone unit is because of the false wall it's 2 foot he 7 never meant to have a door there. its way too low of a casing to have there. so we have documentation from
the assessor office that clearly shows - is there a way i can below this up? >> they're taking care of of it. >> what we see here - can you move it down? >> it's okay. the packages are available to everyone you can just state what you want to state but everyone has the packages. >> 37 years ago - here it talks about and it says right here one
flat, 3 apartments, 4 units. so the flat is this unit right here. the two units are 3562. the third unit is 165. it's on the backside of the building and david will explain to you that the backside of the building was the same level of san bernardino avenue years ago. what happened the city decided they were going to raise the height of the street to make it higher and that took the backside of the building >> put that back to the mick please to get it into the
record. >> - required that the height of the street basically up about 9 feet higher and it made the entrance to the building t you have to go down 5 or 6 stairs to get to that level and two fleeths. and this packet we distributed to the building department basically has photographs of this beautiful building now you should have them now and on the backside. there's the backside it's to germany radical avenue.
they kit away two stories by putting up this wall. this is what you walk down those steps to get to the entrance of the unit. there's nothing wrong with that in the 20s and 30s and they say it was built with stuff they had laying around and here's the streets. it's relatively normal but it's to the federal code. and they never said it was two two too narrow. part of that wall fell down years ago and the city built the wall and it fell on me and my
tenant. that he temporarily shored it so the tenant didn't have to leave. i put the tenant up in a hotel. the tenant went right through that and for too nafz it cost that he $20,000 to fix the city's wall. i just don't want to lose my unit. the last page shows on the far right-hand side approximately 18 foot repairs of the wall with new concrete and a brand new retaining wall. we were able to make is a little larger and the tenant is very,
very happy. i'm unhappy when someone says i aborted something but i'm trying to do what rose mary did and - we're only saying the fact that someone said it was an accessory unit which it's not. i have the names of all the tenants and none of them were associated with the bicycle shop that was there before the church and a wielding shop and the church took over. it's been a great congregation.
and so far as the business is concerned they've waved the 9 fees and i want to wave the 9 times fees on this and all the times i've been having a problem getting permits >> that was the combined time? >> yes. >> rebuttal? >> 6 minutes. >> first of all, let me just say the document that you have that you looked at that on the frame it's the card from the assessors office we use it to get a history. this is not established legal used by gives information. again, we of the situation that
the building permit does not reflect this. his agent arrested that that is a stand alone permit. the previous history does not show a previous building permit. to - what happens it the housing division approved it and he aborted the permit. as i said we're not going to charge him certain fees >> by he's appealing the assessment of costs of all the other opening case like heat and hot water and we're saying no,
this was time spent bth hehould for. he talks about that particular wall he didn't file it right it wasn't the city's fault. from that standpoint the issue of this illegal unit it's a red herring it's everything else. i'd be happy to send him a letter and explain we're not assessing the costs up to this time but he needs to follow through with the process of the building permit. he indicated he had occupants in
those units that's why we're saying we don't believe we're looking at the line item he should have other items excused. he needs to - it would be incredible to wave everything i mean, it won't be appropriate. so the building permit is not the issue but we have sent him forward in that process based on on the record. we have a lot of time of the building permit this recent an observation made by the assessors at the time. if you look at everything from the assessors they have stamped
>> that's - any questions? >> has any work or permits been pulled on the other violations? >> i'm going to introduce senior housing inspectors to give you more details he's been to the site. >> and also could you clarify the life-threatening issues. >> in regards to this appeal this is the one with the unit in question. there is no order of abatement on this order as chief explained the assessment codes have been set aside. in regards to this unit it
commitments the other violations. it has the reporter of windows which he has pulled a window this is a combination of hot water heaters he has permits for that. there are other violations that require correction the solar the heating issues have been taken care of and those other violations like rod dents. >> so the case that has the order of abatement does this include the violations related to the fourth unit on the -
>> it does not. >> totally separate? >> yes there are other issues like windows falling out. >> so if there's no order of & basement i can't are we talking about it today? >> my misunderstanding it's a request for jurisdiction to wave so you would decide to wave the jurisdiction. >> i thought you said abatement? >> the appellant listed several numbers each particular open case has assessment of costs but
he, he included in his appeal the other open cases. he's appealing the assessment of costs on both open properties. that's why i'm saying this discussion is misleading you want all the costs waved and that's not appropriate. we have waved the assessment of costs open the permit associated with the illegal unit. >> can we think separate it if he's appealing everything together can we say we're not dealing with the case that doesn't have an and i basement order? it so you would the department is already >> about two years ago the
building code was changed so the statement of costs is no longer link to this order. the assessment of costs is for violation occurred and we don't have compliance. that's why there's awesome gut it's not a situation where he's appealing the ownerships of order in 15 days. so keep in mind he also has two more in houses hearing with us and if we loin the property for the statement of costs we has a hearing before the board of
supervisors. so that's part of the loin process >> just define a doraborters permit. >> he takes it from station-to-station he started the process and doesn't appear at the next station. >> the permit in question was mr. thomas came down to the department and went to the intact to get a number and that's where you start the process and your given a number and your permits are looked to
see if their factual and the address then your directed to go across the haul to the other side of the building to get the plan checked according to the records below thomas never made it to the other side of the hallway he took the permit and walked out. it's done in various reasons i don't know why. so it's a file status >> a followup question here. >> so did i want to add inform that? >> the permit that the property
owners filed - let's put it up here. >> this is what was filed by his agent. it was filed july 30th and then thank you it got to this point he then aborted the process didn't follow through with it so far as getting through the ultimate viewing by the other stations in the process. that's what he has to do >> so this is a hearing requesting us to take jurisdiction back on a process filed too late for our most of hearing - or a hearing on an
order of abatement so as described by your attorney there has to be some criteria for that and i believe the one case of the illegal unit is up to the owner what we - we shouldn't have jurisdiction on that. and the other one is pretty cut-and-dried there's notice of violations that weren't cured and the violations were never cured so it went through with an order of abatement and there's no legal reason for us to pull jurisdiction on that. that's really the issue i think >> commissioner ma category.
>> the filing of the lawsuit kind of and the last one no one had a chance to look at the lawsuit. obviously it does reflect the lawsuit and that concerns me. would it behove us to continue this so we could feel more confident about direction. i'm concurring with a lot of the issues i think it would be a mistake to try to separate it in this forum and later on we might
regret our decisions. we need to think about our positions maybe another hearing. we're not even clear on the dollar amount and the negotiation. i'm a little bit up in the air about what direction to take here so my position is not to take a possession and revisit this when i get more educated if that's okay with the department >> i think part of the confusion is - it's clearly you any file an appeal in 15 days. if you wish to come to the aa b to contest the imposition of the assessment of costs which one is linked to